sync

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It does so explicitly for each flag: force_rebuild 'drops every table', retry_skipped 'clears failed-file skip markers', and prune_ignored 'drops sources' without dropping the store. It also notes the default behavior of prune_ignored. This provides meaningful behavioral safety information that is absent from the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused paragraph that front-loads the primary action and then explains each flag using backticks for clarity. It is concise without being overly terse, and every sentence contributes to describing behavior. The only minor inefficiency is the lack of a visual break between purpose and parameter details, but it remains well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and parameter effects. It covers all three parameters and their edge cases but does not mention default behavior when no flags are passed, potential side effects on existing data beyond force_rebuild, or concurrency/asynchronous behavior. These are likely captured in the output schema, so the description is largely complete for the agent's needs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains all three boolean parameters in detail with concrete effects and consequences. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, giving the agent clear guidance on what each flag does.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Sync the documents directory into the vector store.' This clearly states the tool's core function. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, the phrasing is distinct enough (e.g., vs. 'add' or 'crawl') to avoid confusion, though an explicit differentiation would warrant a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains what the three boolean flags do but does not provide any context on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'init', 'add', or 'crawl'. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that would make 'sync' the appropriate choice over others. This leaves the agent to infer usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.